MilesD

Is it me, or when you look at what DCS is rendering on your monitor vs what you can see in VR it seems that there is way more rendering going on than what is required by the Rift. During the RIFT blackout when I tried to run DCS the duel image view showing each eye came up on my monitor and it seemed much more appropriate for that copy to render then what we currently see on our monitor. Just curious

So I spent the last day going though lua files looking for a way to turn the cursor on and off without toggling, as the current commands do i.e. (clickable cockpit mode on/off). I am experimenting with an absolute mouse for VR and I need to be able to switch the cursor on or off with separate commands. Basically I want to turn off the cursor that follows your head when an absolute mouse is not sending data. Thanks for any help Miles

Hey IJammer, Over at the 99th we always have UH1 slots. There is significant tasking for the rotary wing assets in the missions. We like to fly in lifts, so its the place to be if you like to fly UH1 formations. Miles

I think that sums this whole thread up well.

I see you share your popcorn

I could only guess, but DCS and their third-party developers must be profitable. I am not saying they are philanthropist for the flight sim community, just that there are probably software markets with more upside. You are right, the dedicated DCS base does spend a lot if you view it as all one title. A module is still cheaper than a round of golf or dinner for 2 though.

StrongHarm, I don’t even know if you could call it “the long game”. How did that meeting for their business model go … “Let’s find a software revenue stream with a small market share, low price point, difficult to research and code, heavily dependent on the latest hardware, discriminating and demanding customer base, I got it, let’s make a digital combat simulator.” Yea, I would agree that many of contributors are there because of there passion for it, and we do get the benefit of their passion. The crack dealer comment was in jest, true ,but in jest. And your candy crush comment is right on. But my wife does get upset about how when she knocks out a block of candy that the acceleration of gravity is not properly modeled and the falling candy reaches terminal velocity instantaneously.

Msalma, I could see your point if DCS followed a traditional game format. Why work on Call of Duty 17 when everybody is buying Call of Duty 18. Airframes in DCS are not only task specific, but persistent. How old a module is does not really have anything to do its viability in the game. When a new airframe is introduced there will obviously be a sales spike from the current DCS customer base. However, for someone late to the DCS game like myself, I am looking at what airframes interest me, when it was released has nothing to do with my decision. The DCS business model gives completed modules very long legs in sales. My first purchase just a few years ago was Blackshark 2, followed by A10C, then flaming Cliffs. 20 modules later I am part of the growing DCS customer base, buying the latest modules only because I don’t have them. My point is the old modules were new to me, and they are new to every other customer who is new to DCS. People who are just getting into DCS and purchase Blackshark as there first module may be disappointed and judge DCS unfairly and not become part of their loyal customer base. Expanding a customer base is the only way a company can survive. So DCS has three choices. 1) Reduce the price of the older modules as they have done for the flaming cliffs, so customers know they are getting a budget model. 2) Upgrade the current module for free and continue to sell at full price. 3) Upgrade the current module, charge for the upgrade, and continue to sell the upgraded model for full price. I think they have to pick one, and it would be in their best business interest to do so. DCS is like a Crack Dealer, they offer a taste for free, get you hooked, next thing you know you are hovering over your keyboard pressing F5, or buying modules that aren’t even out yet. Of course, it exercises your mind instead of destroying it, and is about the cheapest thing out there for personal entertainment. Just my thoughts.

Deezle you are the Man, Thanks I appreciate that, and great video. Per your video I made the following changes. {down = 3520, up = 3520, cockpit_device_id = 9, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('Alt DECS'), category = _('Engine & Fuel')}, {down = 3519, up = 3519, cockpit_device_id = 9, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('Alt Fuel Shutoff Lever'), category = _('Engine & Fuel')}, Miles

Tracking is fine, Physical limitation from injury.

I cant seem to find a keybinding in the controls for the DECS system. Its the switch above the fuel shut off lever. I fly VR and have a hard time looking at it. Thanks Miles

Maybe this, But I don't think he is from Finland. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145129

It can be a bit confusing but onece you do a bit of experimenting it should be clear. There are many ways to do things. From from what I am understanding you want to do I would only use the "modifier" column in the modifier page for both your "shift state" and "modes" modifier. As stated the switch column acts as a toggled modifier. I would map your "shift states" modifier to a button that you have to hold down ex. pinkey switch. I would then map your "modes" modifier to a real 3 position toggle switch, ex. LASTE switch or the three position switch on the side of the throttle handle, that way you don't have to hold it down to use your "modes". Your "shift state" modifier ex. pinkey switch can now be used together with your "modes" modifier ex. LASTE 3 pos toggle switch. I don't know if that helps to clarify. edit.. Sorry I was assuming you have a Warthog throttle and stick.

I forgot a few caveat's modifier vs switch columns If modifier is mapped in the modifiers column to a toggle switch, all buttons without that modifier are disabled. So you would have to also map all common functions to each "mode/modifier. If modifier is mapped in the switch column all other buttons are available but the modifier will remain active until the modifier that is mapped the switch column is pressed again. The switch column essentially acts as a toggle modifier. It will remain active even if another modifier is pressed and can only become inactive when toggled off. In your case. you could use a 3 position toggle on your throttle, ex. LASTE switch, for each mode using the modifier not the switch column. PATH = Mode 1, ALT/HDG = Mode 2, Alt = Mode 3. Note: in this case mode 2 would be default without a modifier because the center position has no switch. Your shifted states could be the pinkey switch. Now you can add any combination of mode and pinkey to each DCS command. Miles

You can use modifiers but you will have make them for each aircraft. Under the controls tab just press add modifier. You can add multiple modifiers per command, ex. Joystick button 2 + throttle switch 12 = "Jettison stores" command.

With the community that is here I don't think anything is "beyond us". I am not a professional programmer but the arduino environment is very simple to grasp. Here is a short program I wrote using a few libraries that enabled me to read a load cell and position a servo based on the load. I did this with a stepper also which provided a very smooth response to stick pressure. The problem with the load cell approach is that when you introduce a force feedback function it thinks you are moving the stick and adjust the stick position accordingly. Again I was not looking for force feedback system, but a very smooth and highly adjustable stick with helicopter force trim and accurate fixed wing trimming that moved the joystick. Again this was just a very basic proof of concept experiment. #include <Q2HX711.h> #include <Servo.h> const byte hx711_data_pin = A2; // sets aurduino pins const byte hx711_clock_pin = A3; // sets aurduino pins int raw; int servo_pos_send =90; // variable to store the servo position int stick_pressure=90; Servo myservo; // create servo object to control a servo Q2HX711 hx711(hx711_data_pin, hx711_clock_pin); // Sets pins per variables void setup() { Serial.begin(9600); // only for serial monitor diagnostics myservo.attach(9); // attaches the servo on pin 9 to the servo } void loop() { raw=(hx711.read()/100.0); // reads sensor stick_pressure = map(raw, 14000, 21000, 0, 180); // maps desired sensor input range to servo sweep servo_pos_send = stick_pressure; // seperate variables for future PID tuning NO TUNING IMPLEMENTED if (servo_pos_send >= 0 && servo_pos_send <=180) // cleans up servo glitching { myservo.write(servo_pos_send); // sends servo "move to" position to servo // Serial.print(raw); // only for serial monitor diagnostics // Serial.print(" "); // only for serial monitor diagnostics Serial.println(servo_pos_send); // only for serial monitor diagnostics } delay(15); //rc servo compatability }

Thanks Looney

Does anyone know of a way to bring up the CTLD menu other than the menu function key. I have macros to load and deploy units but the CTLD function key often changes rendering the macro unusable. Once CTLD menu is active the structure usually does not change. Better yet, if there is the ability to directly enter a specific command without the menu system that would be great for macros. Thanks Miles

@ VR flightsim, That looks really great. The only thing I would change is to make the stick 180 degree reversible. That would get pivot axis as close to the seat as possible if the user does not have the height to slide the bulk of the unit under their seat. Again great design!!. I am not convinced that steppers are the best choice either. The only way they work for this application at all is with load cells or a hybrid closed loop system. I don't think you can go wrong with brushed motors. It is what they use in current systems and its the most economical solution. I find the new hybrid closed loop stepper interesting and I just want to experiment with them. Especially the 3 phase ones which act like a standard servo motor except with a lot of torque. I think I still have a load cell attached to a servo and I will try and post a video of that operating tonight. Miles

I just started using my shop again and I have to finish fulfilling the pnp Cougar hall mod orders I have. Once those are completed I want to focus on a FFB base again. A few years ago I did a lot of experimenting with many different motors and controllers. I have built a few CNC machines for specific tasks so I had a lot of hardware laying around. After a lot of time and frustration I abandoned the project because I could not get a smooth feel to the stick (stiction and cogging). I recently revisited the project but took a different approach using load cells with conventional 2 phase steppers as well as servo motors. I finally got close to the feel I was looking for. I need to reassemble my test rig and I will post some pics. These are not new ideas to anyone, this is just what I am experimenting with now. 2 arduinos in the system Pro Micro as HID (reading thrustmaster shift register and X, Y, axis) Nano for interpreting force sensors and providing direction and pulse to stepper driver.( move to 48mhz DUE eventually) Parallel beam load cell with HX711, nema 23 stepper and driver Obviously there are a lot of problems that go along with the steppers. Mainly the torque varies significantly with microstepping and heat. The force sensors were very easy to implement and are used to drive the joystick to a specific deflection based on the force applied. This completely eliminated the stiction and allowed a very soft but consistent center. My first test was with a parallel beam force sensor mounted to a large rc servo and I was really surprised how well it worked with minimal code. I mostly fly Helicopters so my intent was to make a force centering and trim stick without FFB but have it be highly adjustable (deflection and force). Eventually adding FFB as projects produce viable code. VR Flistsim your design is similar to my single axis test rig and I found it the simplest to implement. I tried ball screws, worked great, but difficult to implement. For me I think I'm going to try a 3 phase closed loop stepper next. With a closed loop system you don't need to have position sensors on the stick and I found the steppers smoother feel than a BLDC motor. You can just read the current step as your axis position. I will start posting code, specs, pics, and results of load cell setups with various motors. My long term intent was to make a universal and upgradable FFB gimbal base kit that different systems could be added to based on the consumer's budget and goal. Miles

Hey Guys, sorry for the late reply. As of now I am not making anymore kits. I would like to make them again but I don't want to fall into the "in 2 weeks" syndrome. I did design a much simpler hall sensor for the throttle that is a direct replacement for the stock potentiometer. Please don't plan on this though. If I start making parts again I will post on here. Sorry about this, its been great making these kits but it's just been physically difficult for me to work in my shop lately. Miles

I think I remember seeing one on a 47s ramp before the 240's came along. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60e3.htm

Thanks, I missed the post.

A few of us Rift users noticed last night that the F10 map is not working properly. The icons are in the correct relationship to each other but do not stay in the proper ground location when you zoom in and out on the map. When zoomed in they seem to be accurate, however when you zoom out they are disconnected from their actual locations on the ground. We also loose our menu on escape sometimes. Anyone else notice this?

It only seems to be on the grass in 2.1. Everything else looks fine, to include all of 1.5. I mostly fly the Huey so most of my time is in the grass.